ted from Joshua (xii. 10 seq.),
and that the last name is that of Jaddua, who, according to Josephus,
was a contemporary of Alexander the Great (333 B.C.). That the compiler
wrote after the fall of the Persian monarchy has been argued by Ewald
and others from the use of the title king of Persia (2 Chron. xxxvi.
23), and from the reference made in Neh. xii. 22 to Darius III. (336-332
B.C.). A date some time after 332 B.C. is now accepted by most modern
critics. See further EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.

Character of the work.

What seems to be certain and important for a right estimate of the book
is that the writer lived a considerable time after Ezra, and stood
entirely under the influence of the religious institutions of the new
theocracy. This standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the
early history of his people. The true importance of Hebrew history had
always centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of
Yahweh, the spiritual God. The tragic interest which distinguishes the
annals of Israel from the forgotten history of Moab or Damascus lies
wholly in that long contest which finally vindicated the reality of
spiritual things and the supremacy of Yahweh's purpose, in the political
ruin of the nation which was the faithless depository of these sacred
truths. After the return from the Exile it was impossible to write the
history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than in a spirit of religious
pragmatism. But within the limits of the religious conception of the
plan and purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view might
be taken up. The book of Kings looks upon the history in the spirit of
the prophets--in that spirit which is still echoed by Zech. i. 5 seq.,
but which had become extinct before the Chronicler wrote. The New
Jerusalem of Ezra was organized as a municipality and a church, not as a
nation. The centre of religious life was no longer the living prophetic
word but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical service of
the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national
but ecclesiastical or municipal, and the historical continuity of the
nation was vividly realized only within the walls of Jerusalem and the
courts of the Temple, in the solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of a
feast day. These influences naturally operated most strongly on those
who were officially attached to the sanctuary. To a Levite, even more
than to other Jews, the history of